Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes along the Saudi Arabian T

Red Sea coast
⁎
Fadiyah M. Baalkhuyura,b, , El-Jawaher A. Bin Dohaisha, Manal E.A. Elhalwagyc,
Nabeel M. Alikunhib, Abdulaziz M. AlSuwailemd, Anders Røstadb, Darren J. Cokerb,
Michael L. Berumenb, Carlos M. Duarteb
a
King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Al Faisaliah Branch, Department of Zoology, Jeddah 51459-21453, Saudi Arabia
b
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Red Sea Research Center (RSRC), Division of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering
(BESE), Thuwal 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia
c
King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Al Faisaliah Branch, Department of Biochemistry, Jeddah 51459-21453, Saudi Arabia
d
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Beacon Development Company, Thuwal 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study assesses the presence of microplastic litter in the contents of the gastrointestinal tract of 26 com-
Stomach content mercial and non-commercial fish species from four difference habitats sampled along the Saudi Arabian coast of
FT-IR the Red Sea. A total of 178 individual were examined for microplastics. In total, 26 microplastic fragments were
Polymer found. Of these, 16 being films (61.5%) and 10 being fishing thread (38.5%). FTIR analysis revealed that the
Commercial fish
most abundant polymers were polypropylene and polyethylene. The grouper (Epinephelus spp.) sampled at Jazan
Grouper
registered the highest number of ingested microplastics. This fish species is benthic and feeds on benthic in-
Mesopelagic fish
vertebrates. Although differences in the abundance of microplastic ingestion among species were not statistically
significant, a significant change was observed when the level of ingestion of microplastics particles was com-
pared among the habitats. The higher abundance of microplastics particles may be related to the habitats of fish
and the presence of microplastics debris near the seabed. The results of this study represent a first evidence that
microplastic pollution represents an emerging threat to Red Sea fishes, their food web and human consumers.

1. Introduction
Plastic has become one of the most common manufacturing mate-
rials in the world because it is reusable, durable, cheap, and lightweight
(Andrady and Neal, 2009). However, the properties that make plastic so
useful also make it a significant threat in the environment, where it lasts
for decades (Sigler, 2014). Their low density leads to low weight but
also renders much of plastic material positively buoyant, allowing for
long-range transport in the ocean (Ryan et al., 2009). As a consequence
of their global spread across the ocean, marine plastic litter has become
a global pollutant, present across all oceans, including the most remote
areas of the planet (Cózar et al., 2014, 2015, 2017).
It has been estimated that around 80% of marine debris originates
from land-based activities, including litter derived from agriculture,
industry, dumping of waste, and discharge with land run-off and rivers.
The remaining 20% is derived from ocean based sources, including
plastic materials released by commercial shipping, fishing activity (e.g.
fishing lines and nets), and recreational boats (Li et al., 2016). Once
entering the ocean, heavier plastic materials sink to the seafloor, while
lighter, buoyant pieces are dispersed by currents or might sink after
being ballasted by biofouling, entering oceanic circulation to accumu-
late in ocean gyres and semi-enclosed seas (Cózar et al., 2014, 2015,
2017).
Marine plastic litter is slowly broken up by mechanical, chemical,
and photolytic degradation processes, resulting in a continuous decline
in size, with the modal size of offshore fragments of floating plastic
debris being smaller than 1 cm in diameter (Cózar et al., 2014). In
general, the term (MP) refers to pieces of plastic smaller than 5 mm,
either because of design, such as small rounded microbeads produced as
resin pellets and powders in cosmetics and scrubs (Zitko and Hanlon,
1991) or as the outcome of fragmentation processes (Ryan et al., 2009).
The size of microplastics, from 10's of microns to a few mm, overlaps
with the prey size of a broad range of marine organisms (Lusher et al.,
2015), creating a risk of micro plastic ingestion by marine organisms.
Indeed, plastic particles have been found across the marine consumer
food web, including zooplankton (e.g. salps and copepods), benthic

⁎
Corresponding author at: King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Al Faisaliah Branch, Department of Zoology, Jeddah 51459-21453, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail address: fadiyah.baalkhuyur@kaust.edu.sa (F.M. Baalkhuyur).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.040
Received 28 December 2017; Received in revised form 12 April 2018; Accepted 13 April 2018
0025-326X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F.M. Baalkhuyur et al.

Table 1
Mean values and range of fish length, weight, and stomach weight for all species, (n) = number of fish collected.
Species name Species common name Habitat Location Commercial Yes/ Sample (n) Mean length (cm) ± SD Length range Mean weight (g) ± SD Weight range (g) Mean stomach weight (g) ± SD
No (cm)

Acanthurus gahhm Black surgeonfish Demersal Jizan Yes 10 33.82 ± 3.72 40–28.1 535.1 ± 187.97 848–308 21.27 ± 6.71
Pristipomoides typus White snapper Demersal Jizan NO 5 28.46 ± 2.46 32.1–25.7 252.2 ± 70.08 368–188 3.71 ± 0.48
Epinephelus areolatus Areolate grouper Seagrass Jizan Yes 5 28.42 ± 4.24 33.7–23.8 281.6 ± 127.85 447–175 9.43 ± 1.29
Pristipomoides Goldbanded jobfish Demersal Jizan/ Yes 10 28.2 ± 2.66 33.2–25.5 236.7 ± 66.26 364–185 5.47 ± 2.19
multidens Qahmah
Lutjanus kasmira Bluestripe snapper Coral reef Jizan Yes 12 24.45 ± 3.77 34.9–20.3 233.17 ± 143.5 665–121 4.22 ± 3.52
Lethrinus microdon Smalltooth emperor Coral reef Jizan Yes 10 29.53 ± 5.2 38.5–22.7 316.5 ± 146.22 605–147 6.66 ± 2.52
Epinephelus Brownspotted grouper Seagrass Jizan Yes 3 36.33 ± 9.92 42.7–24.9 700.33 ± 443.36 1019–194 12.27 ± 5.87
chlorostigma
Gymnocranius Bluelined large-eye Coral reef Jizan No 10 28.23 ± 2.31 33.1–26.1 344 ± 110.16 609–244 5.21 ± 2.32
grandoculis bream
Parascolopsis eriomma Rosy dwarf monocle Demersal Jizan Yes 5 23.3 ± 1.13 24.8–22.2 171 ± 21.37 200–147 4.13 ± 2.41
bream
Sargocentron Sabre squirrelfish Coral reef Qahmah NO 5 30.68 ± 0.89 32–30.1 427 ± 45.39 505–394 11.8 ± 3.11
spiniferum
Epinephelus radiatus Oblique-banded Demersal Qahmah NO 7 29.34 ± 3.33 34.6–25.2 359.29 ± 129.06 582–217 9.14 ± 3.13
grouper

408
Lipocheilus Tang's snapper Demersal Qahmah Yes 7 24.39 ± 3.9 31.6–20.7 214 ± 120.32 444–117 4.29 ± 2.56
carnolabrum
Plectorhinchus Blackspotted rubberlip Demersal Qahmah Yes 6 26.53 ± 1.96 29.5–24.2 235.17 ± 46.23 298–181 6.33 ± 3.44
gaterinus
Epinephelus epistictus Dotted grouper Demersal Jizan NO 5 31.4 ± 6.9 38–21.5 424.4 ± 231.23 716–148 9.2 ± 3.7
Pygoplites diacanthus Royal angelfish Coral reef Offshore No 5 14.06 ± 2.55 17–10 74 ± 21.82 99–47 7.6 ± 2.07
KAUST
Cephalopholis argus Peacock hind Coral reef Yanbu Yes 4 23.63 ± 1.3 25.5–22.5 201 ± 43.64 266–172 7.25 ± 5.85
Abudefduf sexfasciatus Scissortail sergeant Coral reef Al-Lith No 5 14.63 ± 0.63 15.5–14 60.8 ± 5.4 67–55 1.35 ± 0.43
Acanthurus sohal Red Sea surgeonfish Coral reef Al-Lith Yes 3 18.9 ± 3.29 21.5–15.2 92 ± 37.04 128–54 3.67 ± 1.15
Dascyllus trimaculatus Threespot dascyllus Coral reef Al-Lith No 2 10.5 ± 0.71 11–10 32.5 ± 0.71 33–32 1±0
Chaetodon austriacus Blacktail butterflyfish Coral reef Duba No 10 10.82 ± 0.44 11.5–10 34.8 ± 3.94 39–26 1.1 ± 0.57
Neoniphon sammara Sammara squirrelfish Coral reef Al-Lith No 5 15.62 ± 1.64 18.2–13.8 31.2 ± 6.65 37–23 1.6 ± 0.55
Naso unicornis Bluespine unicornfish Coral reef Offshore Yes 2 40 ± 2.83 42–38 901 ± 70.71 951–851 130 ± 7.07
KAUST
Thalassoma rueppellii Klunzinger's wrasse Coral reef Al-Lith Yes 12 16.12 ± 1.75 19.5–14 49.25 ± 17.7 85–23 1.33 ± 0.65
Benthosema pterotum Skinnycheek Mesopelagic KAEC No 10 0±0 2.5–1.9 0±0 0.194–0.112 2.24 ± 0.2
lanternfish
Maurolicus Dragonfishes Mesopelagic KAEC No 10 0±0 2.9–2 0±0 0.188–0.11 2.34 ± 0.25
mucronatus
Vinciguerria mabahiss Panama lightfish Mesopelagic KAEC No 10 0±0 1.9–1.5 0±0 0.027–0.014 1.72 ± 0.13
Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al.
Fig. 1. Map of the Red Sea coastal area showing the location of all sampling sites used in this study.
filter feeders (e.g. bivalves and corals), as well as vertebrates (e.g. fish,
marine mammals, and seabirds) (Sul et al., 2014). Plastic ingestion may
cause internal blockages and injury to the digestive tract of fish
(Cannon et al., 2016; Nadal et al., 2016), which can lead to starvation
or malnutrition (Gregory, 2009). An additional and potentially harmful
aspect of plastic ingestion by animals is the possibility that hazardous
chemicals in the plastics may leach out and be absorbed into the ani-
mal's body. This could potentially cause toxic effects to the animal
(Rochman et al., 2015).
The Saudi Arabian coast of the Red Sea has been recently char-
acterized as supporting a much lower load of floating microplastic
fragments than expected based on its nature as a semi-enclosed sea with
an inverted estuarine circulation (Marti et al., 2017). Although Marti
et al. (2017) found relatively low concentration of microplastic in this
region, abundant fibers were also observed and the ingestion of mi-
croplastic by marine organisms that inhabit this area may occur. Syn-
thetic fibers, mainly derived from degradation of plastic debris (e.g.
rope, packaging materials, and washing of synthetic clothing), are the
most abundant type of microplastics in the Red Sea (Marti et al., 2017),
and maybe derived from land inputs with sewage and waste water or
atmospheric deposition (Marti et al., 2017). Yet, the ingestion of marine
plastic debris by marine organisms in the Red Sea has not yet been
assessed.
Here we assess the abundant of marine plastic litter in the gastro-
intestinal tract of Red Sea fishes sampled along the Saudi Arabian coast
409
Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415
of the Red Sea. The primary aim of this study was to describe and
compare the types of microplastic ingested by fish across different ha-
bitats, while testing for possible differences in the frequency of micro-
plastics ingestion among these habitats. Specifically, we examined in-
dividuals from 26 fish species from four habitat types: demersal,
seagrass, coral reef, and mesopelagic habitats.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling
Red Sea fish, including 178 individuals from 26 species from 4
different habitats were collected. The number of individuals of each
species depended on availability and was, therefore, not under our
control, leading to different numbers of individuals for each species. A
total of 89 individuals of commercially important fish were sampled.
From these, 38 individuals were from demersal species, 43 individuals
from coral reef species, and 8 individuals from seagrass habitats
(Table 1). The remaining 89 individuals were from non-commercial
species, including 17 individuals from demersal species, 42 individuals
from coral reef species and 30 individuals of mesopelagic species
(Table 1). All individuals, from commercial and non-commercial spe-
cies, were sampled from seven locations along the Saudi Arabian Red
Sea coast (Fig. 1, Table 1).
These included 100 individuals captured by artisanal fishermen
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al.
Fig. 2. The morphotypes included (A, B) films (C, D) fishing threads.
using traps at depths between 50 m and 100 m, during 2016 and 2017
in coastal areas near Jazan and al-Qahmah. These fish corresponded to
9 commercial species and 5 non-commercial species (Table 1). A total of
43 individuals of coral reef fish were captured in 2011 and 2012, 10 at
Duba, 4 individuals from Yanbu, 27 individuals at Al-Lith, and 7 in-
dividuals in offshore reefs from KAUST, including 4 species of com-
mercial species and 5 non-commercial species (Table 1). A total of 10
individuals from three abundant species of non-commercial mesope-
lagic fish (Dalpadado and Gjøsaeter, 1987) were collected in 2014 using
Tucker nets at a depth of 700 m offshore from King Abdullah Economic
City (Table 1). We examined all of the Red Sea fish individuals we could
obtain. However, the number of individuals obtained was not the same
across species, because of their different abundance, commercial in-
terest and difficulty to catch (e.g. mesopelagic fish are notoriously
difficult to catch).
2.2. Sample preparation
In the laboratory, fish were allowed to thaw at room temperature
before examination, and the species was subsequently identified. At the
start of the study, sample blanks were placed alongside the sample. For
each fish, the total length (TL) was taken (the length (cm), from the tip
of the snout to the tip of the longer lobe of the caudal fin), and total wet
weight (g) were measured prior to dissection.
Fish were dissected using scissors and forceps to remove the di-
gestive tract from the top of the oesophagus to the anus (Lusher et al.,
2013). In order to prevent external contamination entering the gas-
trointestinal tract during the preparation, the individual (GTI) fish
samples were transferred into 50 ml falcon tubes after the dissection
and kept capped until analysis. After removal, the samples were placed
in an oven for 1 h at 60 °C. To increase the efficacy of the extraction of
plastic from the tissue, a digestion protocol was adapted from the
procedure given by Cole et al., 2014 to increase the efficiency of the
extraction of plastic from the tissue. NaOH (1 M and 10 M), has been
410
Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415
successfully applied to remove biogenic material (e.g. zooplankton). We
chose this method because it is simple, inexpensive, involves low che-
mical hazard, and allows the sampled to be analysed by FTIR following
separation. Thirty milliliter of a 1 M NaOH solution (Sigma Aldrich,
Steinheim, Germany) were added to remove the biological material
present in the samples (Cole et al., 2014; Catarino et al., 2017), with
non-digestible residue (e.g. shells and plant) remaining, in addition to
microplastic materials, following the chemical digestion.
Samples were manually shaken intermittently for about 40 s, each
time, during the incubation period in order to facilitate complete di-
gestion. The digested samples were then filtered through a 200 μm
stainless steel sieve, and the residue retained on the sieve was back-
washed into a Petri dish with distilled water. The microplastic loads
reported here should be considered conservative estimates, as we
cannot ensure that recovery was 100%.
2.3. Detection of microplastic
The samples were visually inspected for the presence of microplastic
under a binocular stereoscope (Stemi 2000 Zeiss with PI 10×/23
maximum magnification), using distilled water to rinse the GIT con-
tents and help identify plastic particles. The samples were carefully
inspected for the presence of plastic particles, including the edge of the
Petri dish, where micro-plastic particles usually attach. The particles
were counted and photographed (Fig. 2), and image-processing soft-
ware “ImageJ” (v.1.50i; http://imagej.nih.gov) was used to measure
the maximum length of each particle (units mm).
2.4. FTIR polymer identification
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is a fingerprinting
technique used extensively for the characterization of plastic polymer
particles. Carbon-based polymers can be described easily from different
bond compositions by yielding a unique spectrum that discriminates
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415

Table 2
Frequency of microplastic ingestion per fish species.
Species name Habitat Location Commercial Number of Number of Total number of Average % Ingestion
Yes/No stomachs microplastic found in microplastic found in microplastic size per
examined stomach per species stomach per species species (mm)

Acanthurus gahhm Demersal Jizan Yes 10 1 1 2.7 100

Pristipomoides typus Demersal Jizan NO 5 0 0 0 0
Epinephelus areolatus Seagrass Jizan Yes 5 1 1 1.8 20
Pristipomoides multidens Demersal Jizan/ Yes 10 2 2 3.8 20
Qahmah
Lutjanus kasmira Coral reef Jizan Yes 12 2 2 2.16 16.67
Lethrinus microdon Coral reef Jizan Yes 10 2 2 1.48 20
Gymnocranius Coral reef Jizan No 10 2 2 2.35 20
grandoculis
Epinephelus chlorostigma Seagrass Jizan Yes 3 1 1 1.9 33.33
Parascolopsis eriomma Demersal Jizan Yes 5 3 3 1.38 60
Sargocentron spiniferum Coral reef Qahmah NO 5 0 0 0 0
Epinephelus radiatus Demersal Qahmah NO 7 1 1 2.14 14.29
Lipocheilus carnolabrum Demersal Qahmah Yes 7 2 2 1.87 28.57
Plectorhinchus gaterinus Demersal Qahmah Yes 6 2 2 3.31 33.33
Epinephelus epistictus Demersal Jizan No 5 1 1 2.71 20
Pygoplites diacanthus Coral reef Offshore No 5 0 0 0 0
KAUST
Cephalopholis argus Coral reef Yanbu Yes 4 0 0 0 0
Abudefduf sexfasciatus Coral reef Al-Lith No 5 1 1 1.2 20
Acanthurus sohal Coral reef Al-Lith Yes 3 0 0 0 0
Dascyllus trimaculatus Coral reef Al-Lith No 2 0 0 0 0
Chaetodon austriacus Coral reef Duba No 10 1 1 4.68 100
Neoniphon sammara Coral reef Al-Lith No 5 1 1 1.51 20
Naso unicornis Coral reef Offshore Yes 2 0 0 0 0
KAUST
Thalassoma rueppellii Coral reef Al-Lith Yes 12 1 1 1.93 8.33
Benthosema pterotum Mesopelagic KAEC No 10 1 1 2.58 100
Maurolicus mucronatus Mesopelagic KAEC No 10 1 1 1.42 100
Vinciguerria mabahiss Mesopelagic KAEC No 10 0 0 0 0
Total 178 26
Average of stomachs 1.00
with microplastic
per species
Average by the total 0.146
number of fishes by
species

plastic particles from other organic and inorganic particles (Löder et al.,
2015). The FTIR spectra of the samples were obtained with a Nicolet
6700 μFT-IR spectrometer (Thermo™) equipped with a DTSG-KBr de-
tector coupled with a microscope, collected in the transmittance mode
according to Yang et al. (2015). The measurement resolution was set at
4 cm−1 in the range of 4000–650 cm−1 with 32 scans. All spectra were
post-processed under an automatic baseline correction mode via the
OMNIC library software. To confirm the polymer type, all spectra were
compared with Hummel Polymer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) as a
reference. When interpreting FTIR output, only readings with con-
fidence levels of 50% or greater (Lusher et al., 2013) and those con-
sidered to have reliable spectra matches (after visual inspection) were
accepted. Only these particles were included for further analysis. The
FTIR test was performed to confirm the identity of each putative plastic
item found during the inspection of the gastrointestinal tract, re-
presenting 2% (26 particles) that had been correctly identified as
plastics using visual microscopy, and the colour was determined vi-
sually. Fibers were the most common morphotypes of plastics in the
present study (98%), consistent with previous reports (Lusher et al.,
2013; Rochman et al., 2015; Neves et al., 2015; Nadal et al., 2016) and
the majority of them were black. Unfortunately, the FTIR test could not
be applied to those items identified as possible fibers, as the FT-IR
procedure could not produce spectra for fibers of such small width, so
FTIR examination is inconclusive. Hence, a hot point test (hot needle
held with forceps, Devriese et al., 2015) was applied on a sub-sample of
fibers (n = 48) to determine the plastic nature of these fibers. More-
over, it is likely that these fibers belong to the category microplastics
since non-synthetic fibers are more likely to be discarded in the
extraction and clean up procedure described for biota. In this paper, we
report microplastic particle counts including these particles.
2.5. Contamination prevention and blanks
In order to reduce the risk of contamination, especially airborne
contaminants such as fibers, special attention was taken to prevent
sample contamination during the dissection, extraction, sorting, and the
visual identification. Clean dissection tools were wiped with 70%
ethanol and used for every individual fish. Cotton clothing and cotton
lab coats, as well as gloves (nitrile) were worn when working to reduce
contamination along the study.
Blanks were taken during every dissection and inspection sessions.
For each sample, a new petri dish filled with distilled water was placed
alongside the sample during the dissection and the visual inspection as
a contamination control. After the inspection of the sample, the control
dish was checked for any contamination using a binocular stereoscope.
A mean of two fibers per blank measurement (range 0 to 3 fibers per
blank sample) were found. Hence, we subtracted the mean blank value
(i.e. 2 fibers) from the value obtained for each fish, to avoid biasing the
results by including fibers derived from airborne contamination.
Sample blanks revealed negligible levels of contamination, thus air-
borne contamination was not a risk in accordance with the corre-
sponding fish sample.
2.6. Statistical analyses
Prior to data analyses, we grouped all fish individuals by habitat,

411
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al.
Fig. 3. Data represents mean ± SEM number of microplastics particles per fish individual among habitat of fish. Letters above error bars indicate similarities (e.g., a)
or differences (e.g., b) among habitats (ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc analysis, p < 0.05).
without considering their species, which was then used in fixed factor
for statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA was performed, after checking
for homogeneity of variances and for normality with Shapiro-Wilk test,
to test for differences in the abundance of microplastics particles in fish
from four habitats: coral reef, demersal, mesopelagic and seagrass,
followed by Tukey's HSD test (assuming homogeneous variances).
Significant differences were recorded at p < 0.05. Data were analysed
using RStudio (v1.1.419) software. A chi-square test (χ2) of in-
dependence was utilized to test for differences between microplastic
particle ingestion between fish species (commercial vs. non-commer-
cial), with a significance level of p < 0.05, conducted in SPSS v
1.0.0.800 (http://www-03.ibm.com/software).
3. Results
The 178 individuals examined spanned a range of sizes (length: 1.2
to 42.9 cm, weight: 0.014 to 1019 g), and habitats (demersal, coral reef,
seagrass, and mesopelagic, Table 1). Microplastic fragments were found
in a total of 26 of the fish examined (14.6% of the sampled fish)
(Table 2). Eighteen out of the 26 fish species examined contained
plastic fragments, resulting in an average prevalence of plastic frag-
ments within each species of 14.4 ( ± 0.3 SE) %. The highest number of
ingested microplastics per individual was observed in Parascolopsis
eriomma, a species feeding on benthic invertebrates in muddy and sandy
offshore sediments. One of the samples from Jazan had ingested 3
particles consisting of 2 films (e.g. bags, wrapper, or part of them), and
1 fishing thread (including those released from nets). Within a species,
the highest prevalence of microplastic ingestion (> 20% of individuals)
was found in the groupers (Epinephelus spp.) and the blackspotted
rubberlip (Plectorhinchus gaterinus). Although differences in the pre-
valence of microplastics ingestion between fish species (commercial vs.
412
Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415
non-commercial) were not statistically significant (Chi-square test;
χ23 = 6.04, p = 0.109).
The size of microplastic particles ingested by the fish varied from 1
to 3 mm, and the average size for all particles collected was
2.39 ± 0.28 (SE) mm. Microscopic examination revealed that the
dominant type of microplastic fragment was microplastic fibers, fol-
lowed by film, and fishing thread (Fig. 4a), with the microplastic ma-
terials presenting a diversity of colours (blue, black, green, white, and
red) (Fig. 4b). Characterization of microplastic fragments using FTIR
spectroscopy showed that most of the particles were polypropylene,
polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyacrylonitrile
(Fig. 4c).
The plastic nature of fibers could not be verified using FTIR spec-
troscopy due to their small width. However, a hot needle test (Devriese
et al., 2015), was consistent with 77% of the fibers (37 out of 48 fibers
tested) being of plastic materials.
A one-way ANOVA test between subjects was performed to compare
the ingestion of microplastics level across habitats. This analysis in-
dicated that the mean microplastics particles (per individual fish) from
the demersal, seagrass, and coral reef habitats were significantly higher
than in the mesopelagic habitat (one-way ANOVA; p < 0.001;
F = 13.83; Fig. 3).
This analysis indicated that the mean microplastic particles (per
individual fish) from demersal, seagrass, and coral reef habitats were
significantly higher than that in the mesopelagic habitat (one-way
ANOVA; p < 0.0001; F = 13.83 Fig. 3). Indeed, mesopelagic fish were
significantly smaller than fish sampled from other habitats.
The number of microplastics particles per individual fish increasing
as the 2/3 power of fish length (R2 = 0.36, p < 0.0001). The results of
Chi-square test of independence showed that the commercial and non-
commercial fish did not differ in the likelihood of containing
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415

4%
(a) 1% 1% (b) 8%

4%
Polypropylene
Polyethylene
Film 42%
polystyrene
Fishing thread
polyvinyl chloride
Fibers
polyacrylonitrile

42%

98%

(c) 12%

4%

Black
42% Blue
15%
Green
Red
White

27%

Fig. 4. Microplastic particles extracted from fishes varied by form, polymer type and colour. (a) Suspect debris was categorized as microplastic film, fishing thread, or
fibers (> 5 mm) (n = 26 particles), (b) FT-IR analysis was used to determine the constituent polymer (n = 26 particles) of the suspected microplastic litter.
Identification of polymers was performed by comparison with a library of standard spectra and only polymers matching reference spectra for > 50% were accepted.
Values are expressed in percentages, (c) colour categories of plastic fragments in the stomach contents. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 3
Summary of the prevalence of plastic items found in fish in previous studies and the results reported here for Saudi Red Sea coast.
Area Type of fish Sample % Ingestion Size of MP particles (mm) Ref

1- North Pacific Subtropical Gyre Mesopelagic 141 9.20% 2.2 ± 1.9 Davison and Asch (2011)
2- Portuguese coast Commercial 263 32.70% 2.11 ± 1.67 Neves et al. (2015)
3- English Channel Pelagic and demersal 504 36.50% 0.13 ± 14.3 Lusher et al. (2013)
4- Mediterranean Sea Pelagic fish 121 18.2% 1.51 ± 16.50 Romeo et al. (2015)
5-Swedish west coast Demersal fish 62 68% – Karlsson et al. (2017)
6- Northwest Atlantic Mesopelagic fish 280 73% 969 ± 1048 Wieczorek et al. (2018)
7- French rivers Wild fish 186 12% – Sanchez et al. (2014)
8- Adriatic Sea Commercial 125 28% 1.78 ± 0.97 Avio et al. (2015)
9- Red Sea Commercial and non-commercial 178 14.60% 2.39 ± 0.28 This study

microplastics items (χ23 = 6.04, p = 0.109), nor did the frequency of
plastic abundance differ with trophic mode of the species (ANOVA,
p > 0.05).
4. Discussion
The present report provides a first assessment of plastic debris
contained in fishes along the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast, involving a
broad range of fishes (in terms of size, taxonomy, and habitat). The
study showed that about one-seventh of the fish examined in this study
had ingested small plastic pieces, with 65% (10 of 13) of the com-
mercial species examined containing microplastic debris. The propor-
tion of non-commercial fish that contained microplastic debris is 35%
(8 of 13 species). The overall prevalence of fish with ingested plastic
debris was 14.60%, within the range of that found in studies elsewhere
(Table 3), despite the very low loads of floating microplastic in the Red
Sea (Marti et al., 2017). The absence of microplastics in 30.7% (n = 8
spp.) of the species examined here may be due to the small sample size
for those species (mean n = 0.5, range 2 to 10 individuals, see Table 2),
so we cannot exclude the possibility that they would show a similar
prevalence of marine microplastic in their guts if a larger sample size
would have been obtained.
The demersal species studied were generally carnivorous and om-
nivorous, feeding on a variety of food of both plant and animal origin
(e.g. benthic fish, crustaceans, mollusks and algae). About 1/3 (38.5%)
of the demersal species examined had at least one individual with in-
gested microplastics.
Coral reef and seagrass fish species showed a prevalence of 46.2%

413
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al.
and 7.7% of individuals containing microplastics debris, respectively.
This suggests that species associated with reef habitats are more likely
to ingest microplastic particles than those in seagrass habitats.
However, we found no significant difference in the prevalence of mi-
croplastic ingestion across different habitats, possibly a consequence of
low power in our analysis due to limited sampling size for some feeding
habits. Feeding habits and habitat can influence the likelihood of in-
gestion of plastic debris, consistent with evidence that microplastic
ingestion depends on feeding strategies (Jabeen et al., 2017). This
suggests that ingestion of microplastic might occur depending on the
feeding habits of fish regardless of prey type.
Mesopelagic species had ingested plastic debris, but showed a low
prevalence, with only 7.7% of the individuals containing plastic debris,
comparable to results of mesopelagic fish sampled in the North Pacific
Subtropical Gyre (Davison and Asch, 2011), (Table 3). The Red Sea
mesopelagic fish examined were captured at depth (700 m) and yet
contained floating plastic debris. This may be attributable to the daily
vertical migrations that characterizes these animals (Klevjer et al.,
2012), which swim to feed on the surface at night and then return to the
mesopelagic layer to seek refuge from predators during the day (Klevjer
et al., 2016). Although mesopelagic fish are not currently of commercial
interest, they play an important role in the marine food web (Gjøsaeter
et al., 1980) and comprise the largest stock of fish in the ocean (Irigoien
et al., 2014). Therefore, even if the prevalence of microplastic ingestion
by mesopelagic fish is low. This is likely attributable to the small size
(mean ± SE length = 2.1 ± 1.1 cm) of mesopelagic fish compared to
those in other habitats (mean length > 20 cm, Tukey HSD,
p < 0.001). They may represent a major link in the transfer of mi-
croplastic debris up the food web, as mesopelagic fishes are important
prey for tuna (Marchal and Lebourges, 1996), squid (Koz, 1995), and
marine mammals (Naito et al., 2013), among others.
The mean size of all particle fragments retrieved from the guts of
fish in this study (2.39 ± 0.28 mm) is similar to the mean size of
floating plastic items in the Red Sea (2.08 ± 2.74 mm) (Marti et al.,
2017) and is similar to the size range of plastic fragments retrieved from
fish guts elsewhere (Table 3). Moreover, (Cózar et al., 2014) reported a
size-dependent loss of floating microplastic during oceanic transport,
with the size class where losses occur concentrated around sizes of
2.2 mm. This matches the mean size of microplastic ingested by Red Sea
fishes, as well as those found in some other locations (e.g. 2.2 ± 1.9 in
the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, Davison and Asch, 2011, Table 3).
This might suggest that ingestion by fish may play a major factor in the
removal of floating microplastic from ocean waters. Hence, the results
presented could suggest that Red Sea fishes are likely to play a major
role as sinks of floating microplastics, which would lead to the trans-
ference of microplastic along the food web, to which human are con-
nected.
This might suggest that ingestion by fish it can play a major factor in
the removal of floating microplastic from ocean waters. The identified
plastic particles in this study were composed mainly by the polymer
polypropylene, consistent with the prevalence of these materials among
plastic debris floating in the Red Sea (Marti et al., 2017). In nature,
these polymers have been reported to contain adsorbed persistent or-
ganic pollutants that potentially impact marine organisms (Teuten
et al., 2009). In addition, additives added into plastic polymers during
the manufacturing processes, such as phthalates and bisphenol A, are
hazardous to marine biota through their role as endocrine-disrupting
chemicals that can mimic, compete with, or disrupt the synthesis of
endogenous hormones (Talsness et al., 2009). Hence, fish containing
microplastics could also be affecting by associated hazardous chemical
compounds, with possible impacts on fish health transferred along the
food web.
Microplastic were found in the GIT of one in each six individuals of
Red Sea fish examined here, regardless of habitat or feeding habit, with
the number of putative synthetic fibers in the fish increasing sig-
nificantly with body size. The prevalence of microplastic ingested by
414
Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415
Red Sea fishes was comparable to that reported in other marine eco-
systems, despite the Red Sea supporting the lowest load of floating
microplastic so far reported (Marti et al., 2017). Hence, we suggest that
Red Sea fishes are likely to play a major role as sinks of floating mi-
croplastic, which would lead to the transference of microplastic along
their food web, to which human may be connected. Indeed, the pre-
valence of microplastics on fish was comparable for commercial species
(i.e., those consumed by humans) and non-commercial species. Mana-
ging plastic litter is, therefore, not only essential to maintain good
ecological health in the Red Sea and elsewhere, but also to protect
consumers from ingesting the plastic we dispose in the environment
(Koelmans et al., 2017).
5. Conclusion
In the present study, we reported plastic pollution in commercial
and non-commercial fishes from Red Sea for the first time. This study
provides an important contribution to the knowledge and under-
standing of plastic occurrence in these commercial and non-commercial
fish, given also their importance in Red Sea catches and human con-
sumption.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by King Abdullah University of Science and
Technology (KAUST) through baseline funding to C.M. Duarte. We
thank Elisa Marti and Cecilia Martin for all their help and support, and
Omar El Tall for his assistance with FTIR and technical support.
References
Andrady, A.L., Neal, M.A., 2009. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1977–1984.
Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F., 2015. Experimental development of a new protocol for
extraction and characterization of microplastics in fish tissues: first observations in
commercial species from Adriatic Sea. In: Mar. Environ. Res. Particles in the Oceans:
Implication for a Safe Marine Environment, vol. 111. pp. 18–26.
Cannon, S.M.E., Lavers, J.L., Figueiredo, B., 2016. Plastic ingestion by fish in the Southern
Hemisphere: a baseline study and review of methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 107,
286–291.
Catarino, A.I., Thompson, R., Sanderson, W., Henry, T.B., 2017. Development and opti-
mization of a standard method for extraction of microplastics in mussels by enzyme
digestion of soft tissues. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36, 947–951.
Cole, M., Webb, H., Lindeque, P.K., Fileman, E.S., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2014.
Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Sci.
Rep. 4.
Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., Hernández-León,
S., Palma, Á.T., Navarro, S., García-de-Lomas, J., Ruiz, A., Fernández-de-Puelles,
M.L., Duarte, C.M., 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111,
10239–10244.
Cózar, A., Sanz-Martín, M., Martí, E., González-Gordillo, J.I., Ubeda, B., Gálvez, J.Á.,
Irigoien, X., Duarte, C.M., 2015. Plastic accumulation in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS
One 10, e0121762.
Cózar, A., Martí, E., Duarte, C.M., García-de-Lomas, J., van Sebille, E., Ballatore, T.J.,
Eguíluz, V.M., González-Gordillo, J.I., Pedrotti, M.L., Echevarría, F., Troublè, R.,
Irigoien, X., 2017. The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating plastics in the North
Atlantic branch of the Thermohaline Circulation. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600582.
Davison, P., Asch, R.G., 2011. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific
Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 432, 173–180.
Devriese, L.I., van der Meulen, M.D., Maes, T., Bekaert, K., Paul-Pont, I., Frère, L.,
Robbens, J., Vethaak, A.D., 2015. Microplastic contamination in brown shrimp
(Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and
Channel area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 98, 179–187.
Dalpadado, P., Gjøsaeter, J., 1987. Observations on mesopelagic fish from the Red Sea.
Mar. Biol. 96, 173–183.
Gjøsaeter, J., Kawaguchi, K., Nations, F., A.O. of the U, 1980. A Review of the World
Resources of Mesopelagic Fish. Food Agriculture Org.
Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine setting-
s—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien inva-
sions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2013–2025.
Irigoien, X., Klevjer, T.A., Røstad, A., Martinez, U., Boyra, G., Acuña, J.L., Bode, A.,
Echevarria, F., Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.I., Hernandez-Leon, S., Agusti, S., Aksnes, D.L.,
Duarte, C.M., Kaartvedt, S., 2014. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic ef-
ficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. 5, 3271.
Jabeen, K., Su, L., Li, J., Yang, D., Tong, C., Mu, J., Shi, H., 2017. Microplastics and
mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 221,
F.M. Baalkhuyur et al.
141–149.
Karlsson, T.M., Vethaak, A.D., Almroth, B.C., Ariese, F., van Velzen, M., Hassellöv, M.,
Leslie, H.A., 2017. Screening for microplastics in sediment, water, marine in-
vertebrates and fish: method development and microplastic accumulation. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 122, 403–408.
Koelmans, A.A., Kooi, M., Law, K.L., van Sebille, E., 2017. All is not lost: deriving a top-
down mass budget of plastic at sea. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114028. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/aa9500.
Koz, A., 1995. A review of the trophic role of mesopelagic fish of the family Myctophidae
in the Southern Ocean ecosystem. CCAMLR Sci. 2, 71–77.
Klevjer, T.A., Torres, D.J., Kaartvedt, S., 2012. Distribution and diel vertical movements
of mesopelagic scattering layers in the Red Sea. Mar. Biol. 159, 1833–1841.
Klevjer, T.A., Irigoien, X., Røstad, A., Fraile-Nuez, E., Benítez-Barrios, V.M., Kaartvedt, S.,
2016. Large scale patterns in vertical distribution and behaviour of mesopelagic
scattering layers. Sci. Rep. 6, srep19873.
Li, W.C., Tse, H.F., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of
sources, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 333–349.
Löder, M.G.J., Kuczera, M., Mintenig, S., Lorenz, C., Gerdts, G., 2015. Focal plane array
detector-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging for the analysis of micro-
plastics in environmental samples. Environ. Chem. 12, 563–581.
Lusher, A.L., McHugh, M., Thompson, R.C., 2013. Occurrence of microplastics in the
gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 67, 94–99.
Lusher, A.L., Tirelli, V., O'Connor, I., Officer, R., 2015. Microplastics in Arctic polar
waters: the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Sci.
Rep. 5, 14947.
Marchal, E., Lebourges, A., 1996. Acoustic evidence for unusual diel behaviour of a
mesopelagic fish (Vinciguerria nimbaria) exploited by tuna. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 53,
443–447.
Marti, E., Martin, C., Cózar, A., Duarte, C., 2017. Low Abundance of Plastic Fragments in
the Surface Waters of the Red Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 333.
Naito, Y., Costa, D.P., Adachi, T., Robinson, P.W., Fowler, M., Takahashi, A., 2013.
Unravelling the mysteries of a mesopelagic diet: a large apex predator specializes on
small prey. Funct. Ecol. 27, 710–717.
Nadal, M.A., Alomar, C., Deudero, S., 2016. High levels of microplastic ingestion by the
semipelagic fish bogue Boops boops (L.) around the Balearic Islands. Environ. Pollut.
415
Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (2018) 407–415
214, 517–523.
Neves, D., Sobral, P., Ferreira, J.L., Pereira, T., 2015. Ingestion of microplastics by
commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101, 119–126.
Rochman, C.M., Tahir, A., Williams, S.L., Baxa, D.V., Lam, R., Miller, J.T., Teh, F.-C.,
Werorilangi, S., Teh, S.J., 2015. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and
fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci. Rep. 5.
Romeo, T., Pietro, B., Pedà, C., Consoli, P., Andaloro, F., Fossi, M.C., 2015. First evidence
of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 95, 358–361.
Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Moloney, C.L., 2009. Monitoring the abun-
dance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol.
Sci. 364, 1999–2012.
Sanchez, W., Bender, C., Porcher, J.-M., 2014. Wild gudgeons (Gobio gobio) from French
rivers are contaminated by microplastics: preliminary study and first evidence.
Environ. Res. 128, 98–100.
Sigler, M., 2014. The effects of plastic pollution on aquatic wildlife: current situations and
future solutions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 225, 2184.
Sul, J.A.I., do Costa, M.F., Fillmann, G., 2014. Microplastics in the pelagic environment
around oceanic islands of the Western Tropical Atlantic Ocean. Water Air Soil Pollut.
225, 2004.
Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland,
S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore,
C., Viet, P.H., Tana, T.S., Prudente, M., Boonyatumanond, R., Zakaria, M.P.,
Akkhavong, K., Ogata, Y., Hirai, H., Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura, A.,
Saha, M., Takada, H., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the
environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2027–2045.
Talsness, C.E., Andrade, A.J.M., Kuriyama, S.N., Taylor, J.A., vom Saal, F.S., 2009.
Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals and relevance for human
health. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2079–2096.
Wieczorek, A.M., Morrison, L., Croot, P.L., Allcock, A.L., MacLoughlin, E., Savard, O.,
Brownlow, H., Doyle, T.K., 2018. Frequency of microplastics in mesopelagic fishes
from the Northwest Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 5.
Yang, D., Shi, H., Li, L., Li, J., Jabeen, K., Kolandhasamy, P., 2015. Microplastic pollution
in table salts from China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (22), 13622–13627.
Zitko, V., Hanlon, M., 1991. Another source of pollution by plastics: Skin cleaners with
plastic scrubbers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22, 41–42.